Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Marin v. Stategreen2 sentences2014If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings."). 15. 851 S.W.2d 275, 278-79 (Tex. Crim. 2014If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”). . 851 S.W.2d 275, 278-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (category-one rights are those that cannot be forfeited by inaction or waived because they are “widely considered so fundamental to the proper functioning of our adjudicatory process” that they are "absolute rights”). . 468 U.S. 1 , 104 S.Ct. 2901 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984). . | 3 | 3 |
Gonzalez v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See id. at 642-46 (holding that a defendant could not raise a claim of multiple punishments for the first time on appeal and that failure to bring the issue to the attention of the trial court forfeited the claim; no express waiver of double jeopardy rights was necessary). 2005See id. at 642-46 (holding that a defendant could not raise a claim of multiple punishments for the first time on appeal and that failure to bring the issue to the attention of the trial court forfeited the claim; no express waiver of double jeopardy rights was necessary). | 2 | 2 |
Haines v. Kernergreen1 sentence2015Egg§§£, 404 U.S. at 444, 447 92 S. Ct. at 590,~592; " Where a "plain error" is found to erist, a court of appeal hay "exercise -8- its discretion to notice a forfeited error;§; only if .,¢ the error seriously affects the fairness, integrityh‘or'public‘reputationjof the judicial~proceed~ inge." United States'v; Cotton, 535 U.$. 625, 631, 122 S.,Ct. 1781,Ll§§- L.»Ed. 2d 860.(2002).»' ~~ ' ` bn 4 ` It'is rarely, if ever, arguable that an illegal sentence does not conetitue ~plain-error. | 1 | 1 |
Crabtree v. Aetna Life Insurancegreen1 sentence1991See Ex parte Crispen, 111 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.Cr.App. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Crispengreen1 sentence1991See Ex parte Crispen, 777 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reed v. Ross
green
2 sentences2014If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”). . 851 S.W.2d 275, 278-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (category-one rights are those that cannot be forfeited by inaction or waived because they are “widely considered so fundamental to the proper functioning of our adjudicatory process” that they are "absolute rights”). . 468 U.S. 1 , 104 S.Ct. 2901 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984). . 2014If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”). . 851 S.W.2d 275, 278-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (category-one rights are those that cannot be forfeited by inaction or waived because they are “widely considered so fundamental to the proper functioning of our adjudicatory process” that they are "absolute rights”). . 468 U.S. 1 , 104 S.Ct. 2901 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984). . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.